My preference is to live a simple lifestyle, minimizing my carbon footprint, buying and consuming less, checking out books from a library instead of purchasing them, biking to work instead of driving, eating vegetarian, etc. Yet it's clear that if everyone lived in such a minimalistic manner, the global economy would be in a shambles. Am I somehow obligated to live a life of conspicuous consumption in order to help support and maintain economic stability and progress even at the cost of continued environmental destruction?

November 7, 2013

Response from Oliver Leaman on November 17, 2013

I think it might be argued that the present sort of economy would certainly come to an end if everyone started to consume a lot less, but that this might lead to the creation of a new sort of economy which could produce a happier, healthier and more relaxed community. Poorer perhaps in terms of GNP but not otherwise.

If you provide your e-mail address, you will be automatically notified whenever this question receives a response. Your e-mail address will not be used for any other purpose, and it will not be given or sold to anyone.

You can use HTML tags if you wish. You can also use the much simpler Textile syntax: for example, *asterisks* around a word make it bold and _underscoring_ italicizes it. If you enclose text in double quotation marks, follow it by a colon, and follow that by a URL, the text will be a link to that URL. For more formatting options and examples (e.g., links, tables, images, footnotes, and more), see the Textile help.

Click the Preview button to see a pop-up window with what your answer will really look like.